- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:39:17 -0500
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Marcos Caceres wrote: > Do you have any suggestions as to how we might move forward? Or a > different approach to solving the problem? The problem being that a ZIP file doesn't know anything about the types of files in it? What Gecko does right now for jar: URIs is somewhat similar to what it does for file: URIs. Specifically: 1) If the caller expects a particular type and indicates that, use that type. For example, any jar: URI loaded from a <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"> will be treated as text/css. 2) If the caller has no type expectation, look up type based on extension. This doesn't use a particular hardcoded list but does a best-effort lookup based on a hardcoded override list in Gecko, the type+extension combinations the user's profile has seen and acted on before, the OS extension to type mappings, another hardcoded list of extension-to-type hints (which differ from the overrides in not overriding the OS mappings). 3) If step 2 did not find a type, use our standard unknown content sniffer (which sniffs based on various stuff including the URI, the data, etc). None of this is great for interoperability, of course, but it's no worse than anything that happens with file:// URIs. I suppose you could in fact define a small set of extensions that would interoperably be mapped to particular types in the context of widgets. You could also define a particular file in the package that contains extension-to-type mappings (either without the predefined mappings, or able to add to and override the predefined mappings). You'd need something like this for sane extensibility anyway, in my opinion. -Boris
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2008 18:40:18 UTC